A. Even if the Defendants indicated the claims receive money from the victims including the Plaintiffs for the purpose of investment in medical device leasing business, they could not be a situation to lease or install the products corresponding to the total number of products purchased by the victims, and there is little rent or profit-making, and it is unclear whether their success in their investment projects would result in future profits. As such, the Defendants are aware of the fact that, inasmuch as the lower-tier investors’ investment funds are bound to pay dividends agreed upon to senior investors, it would not be paid dividends to the victims if the lower-tier investors’ investment limit would result in the limit, and seek compensation by receiving the money from the Plaintiffs without the ability to pay them.

B. The applicable provisions of law and judgment by service (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act) by public notice (Article 208(2)2) of the Civil Procedure Act) the Plaintiff claimed damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from September 5, 2014 to the date of full payment. However, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for delay exceeding the above 5% per annum under the Civil Act from September 5, 2014 to October 14, 2015, which is the date of this decision, is reasonable to dispute over the scope of the above Defendant’s claim. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for delay during the above period is dismissed.

2. Determination as to the plaintiff's remaining Defendants' claims

A. In fact, Defendant B, from around September 2004 to November 2008, organized and operated a multi-level sales chain company, K, and L, etc. among the above companies, even if one of the above companies was investigated or closed down from September 2007 to November 2008, Defendant B, etc. were to continue to operate its organization through other companies in Busan, Daegu, Daegu, and Seoul, for the purpose of continuing its organization through other companies.